Calling Rowe: After-lives of Formalism in the Digital Age

Emmanuel Petit recently invoked the work of Colin Rowe to render a discussion of architectural precedent relevant for the digital age. Questioning Petit’s approach, this article explores the implications latent in this invocation. In so doing, it highlights their misalignments with the current conce...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Stylianos Giamarelos
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: TU Delft OPEN Publishing 2018-04-01
Series:Footprint
Online Access:https://ojs-libaccp.tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/article/view/1760
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850165976305238016
author Stylianos Giamarelos
author_facet Stylianos Giamarelos
author_sort Stylianos Giamarelos
collection DOAJ
description Emmanuel Petit recently invoked the work of Colin Rowe to render a discussion of architectural precedent relevant for the digital age. Questioning Petit’s approach, this article explores the implications latent in this invocation. In so doing, it highlights their misalignments with the current concerns of digital design practitioners. The article thus focuses on the question of a possible after-life of Rowe’s formalism for the digital age. It starts by charting its genealogical development from Rudolf Wittkower’s humanist grids to Peter Eisenman’s ‘post-functionalist’ pursuits of autonomous form and Greg Lynn’s ‘pliant’ geometries. This showcases the dual historical effect of Rowe’s analytical formalism. From the late 1940s to the present, his disciples employed it both as a historiographical model and as a generative mechanism for architectural design. The history of Rowe’s formalism is therefore intertwined with the contemporary concerns of digital design practitioners, including Petit’s question of theorising precedent. The digital design practitioners’ assertions of autonomy are historically rooted in Rowe’s analytical formalism. In the final instance, Rowe’s analysis was carried out from the perspective of modernist humanism, and this historically remained the case in its various versions from Wittkower to Eisenman. Updating Rowe, as Petit suggested, would therefore only perpetuate a modernist outlook in a postmodern age. A formalism for the present cannot ignore the enduring points of the postmodern critique that preceded it. In conclusion, a contemporary variant of formalism needs to address the debates around its possible synthesis with contextualist concerns. To do so, it also needs to engage with the poststructuralist critiques of the intervening decades. Some examples from recent literature exemplify such an approach. They could therefore serve as useful precedents towards an integrated formalism for the present.
format Article
id doaj-art-dae73ce8ed164659a188de00baab4e7e
institution OA Journals
issn 1875-1504
1875-1490
language English
publishDate 2018-04-01
publisher TU Delft OPEN Publishing
record_format Article
series Footprint
spelling doaj-art-dae73ce8ed164659a188de00baab4e7e2025-08-20T02:21:35ZengTU Delft OPEN PublishingFootprint1875-15041875-14902018-04-0112110.7480/footprint.12.1.17601760Calling Rowe: After-lives of Formalism in the Digital AgeStylianos Giamarelos0The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCLEmmanuel Petit recently invoked the work of Colin Rowe to render a discussion of architectural precedent relevant for the digital age. Questioning Petit’s approach, this article explores the implications latent in this invocation. In so doing, it highlights their misalignments with the current concerns of digital design practitioners. The article thus focuses on the question of a possible after-life of Rowe’s formalism for the digital age. It starts by charting its genealogical development from Rudolf Wittkower’s humanist grids to Peter Eisenman’s ‘post-functionalist’ pursuits of autonomous form and Greg Lynn’s ‘pliant’ geometries. This showcases the dual historical effect of Rowe’s analytical formalism. From the late 1940s to the present, his disciples employed it both as a historiographical model and as a generative mechanism for architectural design. The history of Rowe’s formalism is therefore intertwined with the contemporary concerns of digital design practitioners, including Petit’s question of theorising precedent. The digital design practitioners’ assertions of autonomy are historically rooted in Rowe’s analytical formalism. In the final instance, Rowe’s analysis was carried out from the perspective of modernist humanism, and this historically remained the case in its various versions from Wittkower to Eisenman. Updating Rowe, as Petit suggested, would therefore only perpetuate a modernist outlook in a postmodern age. A formalism for the present cannot ignore the enduring points of the postmodern critique that preceded it. In conclusion, a contemporary variant of formalism needs to address the debates around its possible synthesis with contextualist concerns. To do so, it also needs to engage with the poststructuralist critiques of the intervening decades. Some examples from recent literature exemplify such an approach. They could therefore serve as useful precedents towards an integrated formalism for the present.https://ojs-libaccp.tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/article/view/1760
spellingShingle Stylianos Giamarelos
Calling Rowe: After-lives of Formalism in the Digital Age
Footprint
title Calling Rowe: After-lives of Formalism in the Digital Age
title_full Calling Rowe: After-lives of Formalism in the Digital Age
title_fullStr Calling Rowe: After-lives of Formalism in the Digital Age
title_full_unstemmed Calling Rowe: After-lives of Formalism in the Digital Age
title_short Calling Rowe: After-lives of Formalism in the Digital Age
title_sort calling rowe after lives of formalism in the digital age
url https://ojs-libaccp.tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/article/view/1760
work_keys_str_mv AT stylianosgiamarelos callingroweafterlivesofformalisminthedigitalage